sap_get_object_details

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool's behavior well (retrieves details, returns JSON with various fields), but it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The 'GET' in the title implies read-only, but it could be more explicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a bold title line, a bulleted list of use cases, a parameter list, and a return structure. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While it is somewhat lengthy, each section provides useful information, and the organization aids comprehension.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return structure (including fields like 'found', 'state', 'cleanCoreLevel', 'successor', etc.) and the clean core levels. It also provides examples of API calls. However, it does not mention error handling or authentication, leaving some gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds extra context by providing examples (e.g., 'CL_ABAP_REGEX', 'EKKO') and explaining the clean core levels for the optional parameter. This adds some value beyond the schema but is not essential since the schema is already clear.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves complete release state details for a specific SAP object, with a specific verb ('GET') and resource ('object details'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by providing specific use cases and examples, such as checking Clean Core compliance and finding successors.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes a bulleted list of specific scenarios when to use the tool (e.g., verifying if an object is released, checking Clean Core compliance, finding successors). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide direct comparisons with sibling tools, though the use cases imply when it is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.